Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?
"Martin Bohn" 07:49 01/12/2006
Hi Carey,


If you take a solution
focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
all.
However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
courage
because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
the
floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
their
world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
efficacy of
this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
worlds -
isn't that what matching and empathy is about?

This is really interesting ...I have to say that I don't work with
mentally ill people so I have no experience of this and just beginning
to use SF ideas in education... but i was wondering if in SF work we
don't so much as enter their world but co-construct some mutually
useful description which we share while we are talking...so it's not so
much colluding as not dismissing their meanings..

Martin
----Original Message----
From: thehumancentre@onetel.com
Date: Dec 1, 2006 18:18
To: "Martin"
Subj: {SPAM?} [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?

this stuff is really thought provoking and Chris' examples have
started to
answer the question around how far you follow your client and are
you colluding with them when you do so.

In his previous example (28/11) when he and a client came up with all
sorts
of diagnostic boxes to tick for the Trust, this could be seen as an
example
of colluding
because Chris was colluding with the client AGAINST the system which
dare I
suggest suited both of them? Maybe he was colluding because he had
his own
point to make and knew the system wouldn't cope? (am I misrepresenting
you
Chris?) However the above examples don't seem to be colluding because
Chris
BELIEVES in what he is doing WITH the client. Maybe this is where the
distinction lies.

In the examples he
has just given Chris can be seen as colluding depending on whether
you
analyse what he is doing via the
medical model versus the solution focused. If you use diagnostic
categories
and call this work managing mental illness, then Chris is "colluding"
with
the client because we think the client is mentally ill and we
shouldn't
follow them into their path of mental illness. If you take a
solution
focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
all.
However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
courage
because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
the
floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
their
world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
efficacy of
this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
worlds -
isn't that what matching and empathy is about?

It seems to me that this is an argument about whether you believe in
"absolutes" or "relativism" and forms part of the whole distinction
between
a positivistic view of the world versus a social constructionist
view. The
difficulty with relativist views is that they are relative. If I ask
myself the question would I follow my client no matter where they wish
to go
(eg against some moral principles) the answer is "no". I know that at
some
level I have absolutes and don't see everything as relative. So would
I
follow a client who is going down a moral path with which I am not
comfortable, no. But would I collude with them - no. I would say I
can't
do this or I need to declare my position first.

What I would like to open up for discussion here is "are there limits
to
relativism, how do you handle them?" I suspect that many of you who
work
in - dare I say it - mental health - face these issues all the time
and I
would love to hear your views. So maybe when Steve de Shazer was
saying the
person was mad in that video, he was just saying I see some
distinctions
absolutely rather than relatively. Can you see absolutes and still do
SF
work?

thanks all for a stimulating read
Carey

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Iveson"
To: "carey"
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?


Dear all on the 'psychosis/collusion' thread.

Last year I interviewed a 'voice' that according to the referrer was
behind psychotic and potentially harmful behaviour. The 'voice' talked
a
lot of sense and judging by the client's later behaviour the client
took
what she said seriously. Later in the year I interviewed a person who
had died some years earlier and her deeply distressed bereaved husband
somehow heard what she said and found a way back into his life. Even
later in the year I decided not to talk to the voice of another
client's
dead husband since he was calling for her to join him. Instead I asked
her how she had managed to resist his invitations.

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed a family of four but as only the
11
year old was present he had to stand in for everybody and as everyone
said useful things I suppose he did a good job.

I suppose the question this raises is whether or not my clients were
colluding with me in these obvious flights from the 'possible'.

Chris or . . .

www.brieftherapy.org.uk







)
"Ian C. Smith" 08:11 01/12/2006
Hi Martin

I think you may be referring to what's known as 'intensive
interaction' -although I might be mistaken. II is used with all manner of
people with severe and profound learning disabilities, but not so much with
people with autism as far as I'm aware. The intention in II is not to
'enter' the world of the person but to demonstrate empathy without being
intrusive. There's a growing body of literature suggesting that this is
pretty efficacious in encouraging communicative behaviour in people with
S&PLD.
It hadn't occurred to me before, but the worker's behaviour in II could be
seen as a really good example of 'co-operating'!

Hope this helps

Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Bohn"
To: "Ian"
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: [members] {SPAM?} Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?


> Hi Carey,
>
>
> If you take a solution
> focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
> all.
> However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
> courage
> because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
> work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
> the
> floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
> their
> world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
> efficacy of
> this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
> worlds -
> isn't that what matching and empathy is about?
>
> This is really interesting ...I have to say that I don't work with
> mentally ill people so I have no experience of this and just beginning
> to use SF ideas in education... but i was wondering if in SF work we
> don't so much as enter their world but co-construct some mutually
> useful description which we share while we are talking...so it's not so
> much colluding as not dismissing their meanings..
>
> Martin
>
)
"Martin Bohn" 11:27 02/12/2006
Hi Ian,
I didn't know that...and categories don't really matter ...it's just
more about not knowing, staying curious and respectful and following
detail to the best hope
Martin

----Original Message----
From: iancsmith@onetel.com
Date: Dec 1, 2006 20:11
To: "Martin"
Subj: {SPAM?} [members] {SPAM?} Coming Through The Ceiling /
psychosis?

Hi Martin

I think you may be referring to what's known as 'intensive
interaction' -although I might be mistaken. II is used with all
manner of
people with severe and profound learning disabilities, but not so much
with
people with autism as far as I'm aware. The intention in II is not
to
'enter' the world of the person but to demonstrate empathy without
being
intrusive. There's a growing body of literature suggesting that this
is
pretty efficacious in encouraging communicative behaviour in people
with
S&PLD.
It hadn't occurred to me before, but the worker's behaviour in II
could be
seen as a really good example of 'co-operating'!

Hope this helps

Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Bohn"
To: "Ian"
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: [members] {SPAM?} Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?


> Hi Carey,
>
>
> If you take a solution
> focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
> all.
> However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
> courage
> because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
> work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
> the
> floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
> their
> world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
> efficacy of
> this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
> worlds -
> isn't that what matching and empathy is about?
>
> This is really interesting ...I have to say that I don't work with
> mentally ill people so I have no experience of this and just
beginning
> to use SF ideas in education... but i was wondering if in SF work
we
> don't so much as enter their world but co-construct some mutually
> useful description which we share while we are talking...so it's not
so
> much colluding as not dismissing their meanings..
>
> Martin
>




)
"Martin Bohn" 04:15 03/12/2006
Hi Craig
I really liked ypour question....How would you know you
were no longer possessesed?

I wondered also if your music group friend perhaps was so into his
playing when he drifted that he thought he was Clapton...
bw
Martin

----Original Message----
From: craigos@talktalk.net
Date: Dec 2, 2006 7:56
To: "Martin"
Subj: {SPAM?} [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?

Hi I have just dropped in on this post having been away for a couple
of days
at the Brief Conference, (which was great by the way so thanks to all
the
contributors) and am writing at the unearthly hour of 7.00pm as |I'm
back on
childcare duties!
something came up during one of the workshops yesterday thast might
be
pertinent.
A Colleague described how she had been advised to stop working with
someone
who came to her saying that the problem was that he was possessed by
the
devil. We discussed possible responses to this. I said that if I had
been
working with that Client I might have asked them 'How would you know
you
were no longer possessesed? and see where that went. Now that could
have
been seen as 'collusion with delusion' as going along with the
conversation
might imply to the Client that 1.I believed he really was possessed,
and 2.
I was willing to follow him down that path. (I think the path might
have
started to lead out though, not in)
But the important thing is that I think you have to work with whatever
is
real for the client. Who are we to set limits and rules around what
people
believe? It is real for them, and if they have identified that they
have a
problem that needs solving, then change has already started.
I did some music groups in a mental health unit recently and one of
the
patients I worked with would often break off from playing the guitar
and say
'sorry Craig, I know I went wrong there and drifted off but I have
this
thing where I keep thinking I am God. I usually just said something
like 'Oh
how do you cope with that then?' and he would say 'well it doesn't
usually
last long' and we would talk for a few minutes about the coping
mechanisms
he had for dealing with thinking he was a supreme being, and after a
while
he would pick up the guitar and off we'd go into the blues again. I
worked
wth him for 2 years and over time the incidences of the God
'delusion'
lessened. If i had dneied him by not going there I think he would have
felt
unheard, more isolated and less able to cope. Collusion by definition
implies deceit, secrecy and treachery, but collusion can often be
confused
with, listening, support, friendship, being an ally, or being a team
looking for solutions or ways to cope better.
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Human Centre"
To: "craig"
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?


> this stuff is really thought provoking and Chris' examples have
started to
> answer the question around how far you follow your client and are
> you colluding with them when you do so.
>
> In his previous example (28/11) when he and a client came up with
all
> sorts
> of diagnostic boxes to tick for the Trust, this could be seen as an
> example of colluding
> because Chris was colluding with the client AGAINST the system which
dare
> I
> suggest suited both of them? Maybe he was colluding because he had
his
> own
> point to make and knew the system wouldn't cope? (am I
misrepresenting you
> Chris?) However the above examples don't seem to be colluding
because
> Chris
> BELIEVES in what he is doing WITH the client. Maybe this is where
the
> distinction lies.
>
> In the examples he
> has just given Chris can be seen as colluding depending on whether
you
> analyse what he is doing via the
> medical model versus the solution focused. If you use diagnostic
> categories
> and call this work managing mental illness, then Chris is
"colluding" with
> the client because we think the client is mentally ill and we
shouldn't
> follow them into their path of mental illness. If you take a
solution
> focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
all.
> However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
courage
> because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
> work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
the
> floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
their
> world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
efficacy
> of
> this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
> worlds -
> isn't that what matching and empathy is about?
>
> It seems to me that this is an argument about whether you believe in
> "absolutes" or "relativism" and forms part of the whole distinction
> between
> a positivistic view of the world versus a social constructionist
view.
> The
> difficulty with relativist views is that they are relative. If I
ask
> myself the question would I follow my client no matter where they
wish to
> go
> (eg against some moral principles) the answer is "no". I know that
at
> some
> level I have absolutes and don't see everything as relative. So
would I
> follow a client who is going down a moral path with which I am not
> comfortable, no. But would I collude with them - no. I would say I
can't
> do this or I need to declare my position first.
>
> What I would like to open up for discussion here is "are there
limits to
> relativism, how do you handle them?" I suspect that many of you who
work
> in - dare I say it - mental health - face these issues all the time
and I
> would love to hear your views. So maybe when Steve de Shazer was
saying
> the
> person was mad in that video, he was just saying I see some
distinctions
> absolutely rather than relatively. Can you see absolutes and still
do SF
> work?
>
> thanks all for a stimulating read
> Carey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Iveson"
> To: "carey"
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:37 PM
> Subject: [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?
>
>
> Dear all on the 'psychosis/collusion' thread.
>
> Last year I interviewed a 'voice' that according to the referrer was
> behind psychotic and potentially harmful behaviour. The 'voice'
talked a
> lot of sense and judging by the client's later behaviour the client
took
> what she said seriously. Later in the year I interviewed a person
who
> had died some years earlier and her deeply distressed bereaved
husband
> somehow heard what she said and found a way back into his life. Even
> later in the year I decided not to talk to the voice of another
client's
> dead husband since he was calling for her to join him. Instead I
asked
> her how she had managed to resist his invitations.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I interviewed a family of four but as only the
11
> year old was present he had to stand in for everybody and as
everyone
> said useful things I suppose he did a good job.
>
> I suppose the question this raises is whether or not my clients were
> colluding with me in these obvious flights from the 'possible'.
>
> Chris or . . .
>
> www.brieftherapy.org.uk
>
>
>




)
"craig osment" 06:41 03/12/2006
Hi Martin, strangely enough he hated Clapton and was more into that Steve
vai heavy fast widdley diddly music of the devil type Thang. Hmmmm...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Bohn"
To: "craig"
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:15 PM
Subject: [members] {SPAM?} Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?


> Hi Craig
> I really liked ypour question....How would you know you
> were no longer possessesed?
>
> I wondered also if your music group friend perhaps was so into his
> playing when he drifted that he thought he was Clapton...
> bw
> Martin
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: craigos@talktalk.net
> Date: Dec 2, 2006 7:56
> To: "Martin"
> Subj: {SPAM?} [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?
>
> Hi I have just dropped in on this post having been away for a couple
> of days
> at the Brief Conference, (which was great by the way so thanks to all
> the
> contributors) and am writing at the unearthly hour of 7.00pm as |I'm
> back on
> childcare duties!
> something came up during one of the workshops yesterday thast might
> be
> pertinent.
> A Colleague described how she had been advised to stop working with
> someone
> who came to her saying that the problem was that he was possessed by
> the
> devil. We discussed possible responses to this. I said that if I had
> been
> working with that Client I might have asked them 'How would you know
> you
> were no longer possessesed? and see where that went. Now that could
> have
> been seen as 'collusion with delusion' as going along with the
> conversation
> might imply to the Client that 1.I believed he really was possessed,
> and 2.
> I was willing to follow him down that path. (I think the path might
> have
> started to lead out though, not in)
> But the important thing is that I think you have to work with whatever
> is
> real for the client. Who are we to set limits and rules around what
> people
> believe? It is real for them, and if they have identified that they
> have a
> problem that needs solving, then change has already started.
> I did some music groups in a mental health unit recently and one of
> the
> patients I worked with would often break off from playing the guitar
> and say
> 'sorry Craig, I know I went wrong there and drifted off but I have
> this
> thing where I keep thinking I am God. I usually just said something
> like 'Oh
> how do you cope with that then?' and he would say 'well it doesn't
> usually
> last long' and we would talk for a few minutes about the coping
> mechanisms
> he had for dealing with thinking he was a supreme being, and after a
> while
> he would pick up the guitar and off we'd go into the blues again. I
> worked
> wth him for 2 years and over time the incidences of the God
> 'delusion'
> lessened. If i had dneied him by not going there I think he would have
> felt
> unheard, more isolated and less able to cope. Collusion by definition
> implies deceit, secrecy and treachery, but collusion can often be
> confused
> with, listening, support, friendship, being an ally, or being a team
> looking for solutions or ways to cope better.
> Craig
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Human Centre"
> To: "craig"
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> Subject: [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?
>
>
>> this stuff is really thought provoking and Chris' examples have
> started to
>> answer the question around how far you follow your client and are
>> you colluding with them when you do so.
>>
>> In his previous example (28/11) when he and a client came up with
> all
>> sorts
>> of diagnostic boxes to tick for the Trust, this could be seen as an
>> example of colluding
>> because Chris was colluding with the client AGAINST the system which
> dare
>> I
>> suggest suited both of them? Maybe he was colluding because he had
> his
>> own
>> point to make and knew the system wouldn't cope? (am I
> misrepresenting you
>> Chris?) However the above examples don't seem to be colluding
> because
>> Chris
>> BELIEVES in what he is doing WITH the client. Maybe this is where
> the
>> distinction lies.
>>
>> In the examples he
>> has just given Chris can be seen as colluding depending on whether
> you
>> analyse what he is doing via the
>> medical model versus the solution focused. If you use diagnostic
>> categories
>> and call this work managing mental illness, then Chris is
> "colluding" with
>> the client because we think the client is mentally ill and we
> shouldn't
>> follow them into their path of mental illness. If you take a
> solution
>> focused view then following the client this way is not colluding at
> all.
>> However I recognise that it might carry inherent risks and takes
> courage
>> because we are entering unchartered territory. I am reminded of the
>> work that is being done in autism where the "therapists" sit down on
> the
>> floor and rocks back and forth with the autistic child to "enter"
> their
>> world (does anyone know if there has been any research into the
> efficacy
>> of
>> this approach?) Is that collusion? Don't we all enter our clients
>> worlds -
>> isn't that what matching and empathy is about?
>>
>> It seems to me that this is an argument about whether you believe in
>> "absolutes" or "relativism" and forms part of the whole distinction
>> between
>> a positivistic view of the world versus a social constructionist
> view.
>> The
>> difficulty with relativist views is that they are relative. If I
> ask
>> myself the question would I follow my client no matter where they
> wish to
>> go
>> (eg against some moral principles) the answer is "no". I know that
> at
>> some
>> level I have absolutes and don't see everything as relative. So
> would I
>> follow a client who is going down a moral path with which I am not
>> comfortable, no. But would I collude with them - no. I would say I
> can't
>> do this or I need to declare my position first.
>>
>> What I would like to open up for discussion here is "are there
> limits to
>> relativism, how do you handle them?" I suspect that many of you who
> work
>> in - dare I say it - mental health - face these issues all the time
> and I
>> would love to hear your views. So maybe when Steve de Shazer was
> saying
>> the
>> person was mad in that video, he was just saying I see some
> distinctions
>> absolutely rather than relatively. Can you see absolutes and still
> do SF
>> work?
>>
>> thanks all for a stimulating read
>> Carey
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Iveson"
>> To: "carey"
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 5:37 PM
>> Subject: [members] Coming Through The Ceiling / psychosis?
>>
>>
>> Dear all on the 'psychosis/collusion' thread.
>>
>> Last year I interviewed a 'voice' that according to the referrer was
>> behind psychotic and potentially harmful behaviour. The 'voice'
> talked a
>> lot of sense and judging by the client's later behaviour the client
> took
>> what she said seriously. Later in the year I interviewed a person
> who
>> had died some years earlier and her deeply distressed bereaved
> husband
>> somehow heard what she said and found a way back into his life. Even
>> later in the year I decided not to talk to the voice of another
> client's
>> dead husband since he was calling for her to join him. Instead I
> asked
>> her how she had managed to resist his invitations.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago I interviewed a family of four but as only the
> 11
>> year old was present he had to stand in for everybody and as
> everyone
>> said useful things I suppose he did a good job.
>>
>> I suppose the question this raises is whether or not my clients were
>> colluding with me in these obvious flights from the 'possible'.
>>
>> Chris or . . .
>>
>> www.brieftherapy.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
)
"Chris Iveson" 12:39 04/12/2006
Ooops I hadn't finished!



I thought I'd better read 'Problem to Solution' again and doing so took
me back to a case from that time which is reported in Jane Lethem's
'Moved to tears, moved to action' where a text book (even today)
question leads to a collusion you definitely wouldn't want to subscribe
to or rename! I can only own up to it because I couldn't have been more
roundly chastised when I showed it for the first time! It also taught a
useful lesson about thoughtfulness in relation to language. The client
in this case was a man who had been very violent to his partner but
stopped being violent once therapy had begun. However, he tells me that
he came close to it on Christmas Eve when he went round to his
ex-partner and her children's home with a baseball bat intending to "do
'em all in" but in the end shouted and " . . . just booted the door and
went off". My next question was technically fine in that I followed the
client's language and asked a good question, but:



"So how come you just booted the door and went off?"



As for 'Problem to Solution' I thought chapter 1 was a great snapshot of
where it was once 'Clues' had been digested but still so tied into
unnecessary systemic ideas from our family therapy roots, and ideas
about the need for the client to talk about the problem and full of
little bits of 'doing to' from hypnosis and very little appreciation of
the value of future focused questions. And it worked brilliantly!



A little bit of history about the book.



Evan, Harvey and I taught ourselves solution focused brief therapy
mainly from 'Keys' and 'Clues' in the Autumn-Spring 88-89. We presented
our first workshop as the Association for Family Therapy conference in
the Autumn of 1989 and at the conference a guy called Richard Gollner
came up to us and said he'd missed our workshop but heard so much about
it he suggested we write a book (Richard had published a number of
influential family therapy books). So we said okay and wrote it before
we met with Steve de Shazer who we had invited to present a two-day
workshop in the Spring of 1990 (the first ever BRIEF event). We were
very nervous about Steve's reaction to 'Problem to Solution' and, as you
can see from the foreword, so was he! Luckily it turned out well for all
of us. Richard set up BT Press which is about to publish Rayya, Lucy and
Sarah's book, Steve and Insoo went on to become the most influential
therapists of our time and we began being BRIEF (or the Brief Therapy
Practice as we were originally)



And so for chapter 2!



Chris



www.brieftherapy.org.uk





PS Richard at BT Press is very up for publishing more solution focused
books and recent discussions on this list show that there are many
interesting takes and applications of solution focus still to be written
down
"Chris Iveson" 12:24 04/12/2006
I thought I'd better read 'Problem to Solution' again and doing so took
me back to a case from that time which is reported in Jane Lethem's
'Moved to tears, moved to action' where a text book (even today)
question leads to a collusion you definitely wouldn't want to subscribe
to or rename! I can only own up to it because I couldn't have been more
roundly chastised when I showed it for the first time! It also taught a
useful lesson about thoughtfulness in relation to language. The client
in this case was a man who had been very violent to his partner but
stopped being violent once therapy had begun. However, he tells me that
he came close to it on Christmas Eve when he went round to his
ex-partner and her children's home with a baseball bat intending to "do
'em all in" but in the end shouted and " . . . just booted the door and
went off". My next question was technically fine in that I followed the
client's language and asked a good question, but:



"So how come you just booted the door and went off?"



As for 'Problem to Solution' I thought chapter 1 was a great snapshot of
where it was once 'Clues' had been digested but still so tied into
unnecessary systemic ideas from our family therapy roots, and ideas
about the need for the client to talk about the problem and full of
little bits of 'doing to' from hypnosis and very little appreciation of
the value of future focused questions. And it worked brilliantly!



A little bit of history about the book.



Evan, Harvey and I taught ourselves solution focused brief therapy
mainly from 'Keys' and 'Clues' in the Autumn-Spring 88-89. We presented
our first workshop as the Association for Family Therapy conference in
the Autumn of 1989 and at the conference a guy called Richard Gollner
came up to us and said he'd missed our workshop but heard so much about
it he suggested we write a book (Richard had published a number of
influential family therapy books). So we said okay and wrote it before
we met with Steve de Shazer who we were inviting to present a two-day
workshop in the Spring of 1990 (the first ever BRIEF event). We were
very nervous about Steve's reaction to 'Problem to Solution' and, as you
can see from the foreword, so was he! Luckily it turned out well for all
of us. Richard set up BT Press which is about to publish Rayya